Coburn: State omitted something very significant to Senate Intel Committee

posted at 11:21 am on May 9, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

How significant? Well, we don’t know that precisely, because Sen. Tom Coburn can’t tell the Morning Joe crew what got omitted. Suffice it to say, Coburn explains, that the omission from State on what happened in Benghazi was significant and will cause big problems for the Obama administration … if it ever gets declassified:

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) on Thursday warned that congressional hearings into Benghazi could create “real trouble” for the State Department and said there was a “glaring omission” in the information provided to lawmakers about the administration’s response to the deadly attack.

“I think the State Department has real trouble,” Coburn said in an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” and suggested there was another show waiting to drop.

“Having sat on the Intelligence Committee and having seen the review of emails that went back and forth that developed the list, there’s a glaring problem there that will eventually come out, and I can’t talk about it now, but there was an omission that was given to the Intelligence Committee,” he said.

Can we reverse-engineer this a bit? Among the big revelations yesterday were the fact that Gregory Hicks briefed Hillary Clinton directly during the attack, and that Hicks knew that the assault was a terrorist attack and not a spontaneous demonstration. Did State somehow omit that contact in its presentation to the Senate Intel Committee? Perhaps, but that sounds like something Coburn could discuss freely, especially after the open testimony yesterday.

Coburn seems to be focused on the talking points promulgated by the White House before Susan Rice went on TV to blame a YouTube video. There was some discussion of that in yesterday’s hearing, That may have more to do with this revelation, as noted by Olivier Knox at Yahoo News:

Gowdy provided one of the few surprises in the hearing, reading what he described as an email from the day after the attacks in which Acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones said she had told the Libyan governor that “the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.” That raised fresh questions about why top Obama aides emphasized the role of spontaneous demonstrations against the video in public remarks for days afterwards.

Since that also came up in open testimony, Coburn could at least allude to it if that’s what the issue is. It could be that State not only omitted the e-mail but also the intel that led to Jones’ conclusion. This was one of the more overlooked revelations of the hearing yesterday, and perhaps Coburn is sending a clue that this might be a fulcrum for the Senate Intel Committee to use to reopen the whole, sordid mess.

Or perhaps it’s something else entirely, a prospect that can’t make State and the White House very happy at all. There may be a lot more shoes than just one left to drop with Benghazi.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

The American State Run Media will dig into this incident, so that the American people will have the full story on what happpened in the days and weeks surrounding the Benghazi attack. Did you know that “Death is a part of Life”…according to Elijah Cummings?

Senator Coburn is using the opportunity on a national television show, widely viewed, to exert pressure on the administration and to make clear to his fellow congress members that they are mandated to act and to pursue this issue regardless of their political affiliation. His statement makes clear that if any member seeks to ‘protect’ the administration in any way, including suppression, obfuscation, or simply turning a blind eye to the evidence at hand, they risk being complicit in the negligence, and if there is found to be any obstruction by the administration, in that obstruction as well.

You gotta love how no one in Washington can ever say that someone LIED. It’s like a huge taboo for those guys. If someone deliberately tells you and untruth it’s called LYING guys. Grow a pair and call a spade a spade.

The bottom line is there’s not transparency, there’s lying and coverup for their own purposes, so who knows. When that’s going on, who can say what the truth is.

James B. Stewart, the gay liberal who wrote “Blood Sport” about the Clintons, said he was most struck by the attitude the Clintons had towards the truth, which is, they saw no value in it, in itself. If I lie would do better, they’d go with the lie.

Instead of 5 hrs at the next hearing, I have an idea to reduce it Mr. Issa. Stipulate the following already established as fact in Oct:

1) Consulate budget for extra security was NOT a factor
2) There were 2 outbreaks and no one was certain if more were forthcoming. As a result, no one can discuss “lengthy distances” of air support
3) It has been confirmed the Accountability Review Board failed to interview at least 1 whistleblower who requested to be along with no formal interview of Hillary Clinton. As a result, the credibility of ARB is void.

Set those out front next hearing and shave 2 hrs off. The Dems on the Comm will be absolutely silent when those 3 cards are unavailable…

Excuse me for not getting excited about Tom Coburn’s statement about something, he can’t talk about! He is reminding me of Rubio, trying to rehab himself for being a member of the Gang of Eight, and a Schumer stooge. Coburn got all squishy on the 2nd Amendment and that has not played well at home! So, now he wants to rehab himself by trying to pull off a Seinfeld-type script, with a, “Show About Nothing!”

If a scandal explodes in DC about something the Dems did or did not do, if the LSM ignores it, does it matter?

I read my local rag (currently owned by Warren Buffet) from cover to cover last night, and did not see a word concerning these hearings. I scrolled through pages and pages of both Yahoo! and Google news headlines yesterday afternoon and did not spot a single word about the hearings. (I refuse to troll through the slime and muck of the NYT or the WaPo.) I asked my youngest son, who is a pretty staunch conservative about what he’s heard or read about it outside of Rush, and he said “nothing”.

Unfortunately, no matter how many smoking guns these congressional hearings uncover, the whole thing will simply sink unheard and unseen into the impenetrable cocoon in which liberals hide their dirty laundry.

Pull a Bella Abzug…her stock in trade in the House was to declassify on the spot just about anything she wished…just to hammer home her point. Funny thing, even her opponents had respect for her in the long run.

C’mon, Coburn…not gonna let a former Congresswoman in a large flamboyant hat make you look like a piker, are ya?

C’mon…you know you want to.

What are they going to do? Arrest you?

Fat chance of that happening…that’d would be the straw…end the Obama Adminsitration, maybe.

Imagine, you are in bed ready to fall asleep, but you hear your noisy neighbor upstairs in his bedroom and your drifting off to slumber is disturbed as you hear the thud of only one shoe hit the floor above your ceiling. You know there has to be another shoe to hit the floor and you anxiously await that sleep depriving thud so you can go to sleep.

Thus, the anticipation of “there’s another shoe to drop”. The event is not yet completed.

I kind of know the answer, but seriously, how do they (i.e., Jay Carney, ET AL), go to the press EVERY DAY and LIE THEIR ASS OFF, and a) keep their composure, and b) not get laughed out of the room ???

The press, even the conservative press, just sit there stone-face while lies are spewed forth from people who have literally sold their souls (and soles) to the devil. Literally.

Instead of Brit Hume and Stephen Hayes droning on about what’s happening without a peep of passion, we need Michelle Malkin to inject a little spunk in these Washington animals, even the conservative ones.

Ever get the feeling that the GOPe is half-hearted about this rat-eared pestilence because we might not be able to handle the “shock & disruption”?

Listen you dumbasses, all of you in government work for we-the-people, we can handle the truth. Just do your job and fulfill the oath to protect the Constitution and all will be well. Stop trying to perceive emanations and penumbras translated into new burdensome laws and hold yourselves to a higher standard for any laws you pass.

If in your investigations it gets to the point that Oboobi and/or Hillary committed treason, then give them the full measure of law. We can handle it and our faith will be restored somewhat in the governing class.

Let’s see if we can get some creative guesses going as to what Coburn is talking about.

1: Who in the administration ordered all the military forces to stand down.
2: There was direct communications with the embassy during the attack, meaning that it was known that the attack was not the result of a demonstration.

Does anyone know why Obama was kept purposefully uninformed? There is NO WAY a White House staff would not inform the president of what was happening. He was either purposefully left out for deniability or he was doing something that was too “sensitive” to be disturbed by something this important. He was not asleep for all of this but was told nothing and asked no questions after the initial briefing by Panetta. Utterly unbelievable.

Yes gun-running, to Syria from Libya, but we may not have hit on the right angle, -the money.

Misapplication of congressionally-approved money to fund a secret gun-running program, secret because the Russians had warned the REB not to arm the Libyan rebels. Perhaps in secret the REB made that commitment to the Russians.

President Reagan’s Iran-Contra was all about misapplication of funding. It led to a Special Prosecutor, hearings, and people went to jail. The democratics made a BIG deal of it.

I would lay money that the POTUS was far from “uninformed”. When any of his staff say that, they are flat-out lying. He knew all along what was going on. A “stand down” order to halt a rescue mission of diplomatic personnel in peril – a standing order – can only come from the highest level. Even if Hillary actually gave the order, she would not, I believe, have done so without Presidential cover.

I would lay money that the POTUS was far from “uninformed”. When any of his staff say that, they are flat-out lying. He knew all along what was going on. A “stand down” order to halt a rescue mission of diplomatic personnel in peril – a standing order – can only come from the highest level. Even if Hillary actually gave the order, she would not, I believe, have done so without Presidential cover.

Ace ODale on May 9, 2013 at 1:48 PM

I don’t know about that. If we can believe that Hillary and Panetta gave the GO order to kill Osama while the REB was golfing, and I certainly do, then I can believe that Hillary went out of bounds and gave this stand-down order.

It’s still on the REB though if she did, for not throwing her under the bus for it.

I think Coburn is being kind when he says “omission.” He means deliberately left out. Remember, the O crew was making this up as they went along and there were inconvenient facts that came out after the Susan Rice story was set in stone. Hicks said he has never seen the classified version of the ARB report. Coburn has seen the classified version. Something, probably more than one thing, was left out. Perhaps it is the voice mail message Stevens left on Hicks’ phone. The one where he said, “Greg, we’re under attack.” Shouldn’t that voice mail exist in its entirety?

How many times must the same lesson be learned by these people? Drip, drip, drip is not a winning strategy to deal with a problem.

A full, straight-forward response at the time of the event would have focused inquiry where it belonged, on the response (if there were issues, as there clearly are). The cover-up, on the other hand,suggests duplicity.

Which would you rather have in a public official?

Incompetence or Lying?

It’s a tough call. You want neither. But, given the choice, incompetence can lead to problems. Duplicity, dishonesty, prevarication, and outright lying, can bring down a nation.

What is the “missing” piece here? Think about it. If the “talking points” were altered, there is a paper trail (include electronic in the definition of paper). Somebody “marked up” the talking points. You don’t suggest changes by saying, “Change it and let me see it.” Particularly someone such as, for example, Ms. Clinton’s lawyer (or Ms. Clinton herself — also a lawyer).

Lawyers mark up documents. It’s what they do.

Did somebody leave an attachment off of an email copy? The attachment showing the “marked” changes as the talking points circulated?

You’re getting awfully close to fingerprints on the changes that were made. Depending on how high up the chain those fingerprints lead, yeah, that could be a problem. Most likely, for Hillary or the Ego in Chief.

Do you think Candy Crowley winces everytime new Benghazi info goes public — back in Oct 2012 she might have thought she put this issue to bed…

mjbrooks3 on May 9, 2013 at 11:31 AM

She put it to bed long enough for Obama to be elected, which is all that mattered (Hillary Clinton agrees!!!). A President Mitt Romney would probably have declassified enough documents to make heads roll at the State Department.

The glaring omission is Stevens’s purpose for being in Benghazi. Hicks testified Clinton wanted Benghazi as a US outpost. Hicks said Stevens was there — in a mad dash — so he could submit a report before 9/30/12 saying “yes, Benghazi will be a terrific outpost” to get immediate funding for its opening.

Clinton’s plan to make Benghazi an outpost was so important, Stevens went there on the most dangerous day of the year.

Of course, a terrorist attack in Benghazi would blow Clinton’s plan. So why the Administration continually advanced the blame-the-video whopper, is obvious.

The real question, yet to be asked by big media, is WHY did Clinton plan to make Benghazi a second US outpost? Why the big hurry? And why was her Benghazi-outpost plan omitted from the non-classified ARB report (and likely withheld from Congress in classified briefings)?

There may be a lot more shoes than just one left to drop with Benghazi.

If there is no one in the press to hear them drop do they make a sound? This is all over, without a curious, honest media we’ll have no more attention to this issue than we currently have.

Even if someone came out with hard evidence that Hillary and Obama conspired to keep the truth from coming out neither the media would care nor the American public ever know.

Four brave Americans died and were sacrificed on the alter of political expediency. The only solace I take away from this sordid, disgusting spectacle is that Woods and Doherty reportedly took a good size honor guard with them to Valhalla; Goodonem.